Hello, Emesz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! SlimVirgin(talk)20:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weissmandl sources and 3RR
Emesz, you're adding large amounts of material without attributing it to a reliable source. Please see our policy on sourcing, Wikipedia:Attribution, which says that anything challenged or likely to be challenged must have a reliable, published source or it may be removed, and the sources have to be in the form of inline citations to be of any use. That is, you must say after the sentence where you got it from, including page numbers if it's a book.
Also, please review our WP:3RR policy, which says you may not revert more than three times in 24 hours; any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert. If you violate 3RR, you may be reported and blocked from editing. Many thanks, SlimVirgin(talk)02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've again had to revert your additions to Yehuda Bauer. Perhaps it would help if you were to read our content policies, in particular WP:A, which says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced, preferably using an inline citation, and that we're not allowed to add our own opinions; see the section WP:NOR. Also see WP:NPOV. The material you're adding is interesting, but it's a contentious area, and so you must stick closely to what the sources say, and give citations for your edits. If you don't know how to write the citations, add some source material after one of your edits, and I'll format it for you. You can then copy that for the rest of the citations. Hope this helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk)20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your note on my Talk page added extensive references to my one paragraph addition to the Bauer page. Please advise if this is what you had in mind.
Seems to me that the same rule ought to apply to the original material posted on Bauer and others - i.e. extensive references - point by point, which is lacking.
Problem Updating Yitzchak Rabin Page
For second time contribution to the Yitzcha Rabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Rabin) page is deleted, which seems like vandalism. The deleted text and reference to the Israel produced video "ALTALENA" is historically accurate, the content is widely known in Israel and the material is based mostly on the referenced book by Dr. Uri Milstein, a well known Israeli military historian. Motivation for deletion is either ignorance about Yitzhak Rabin or the person's political view. The article in its current state is not balanced, which violates the Wikipedia NPOV principle. Would appreciate advice on how to assure that historically accurate material is not deleted again on this page due to someone wanting to suppress facts he/she doesn't like.Emesz10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{helpme}}
"Nupractor" seems to be a vandal. is there a refereeing process on Wikipedia. If so, how can it be contacted?Emesz11:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. In obvious cases, to start with, you should revert the user and warn them yourself (see WP:TT for a list of warnings that you can give to vandals). If you reach the stage where you give a user a final warning and they still continue vandalising, you can report them at WP:AIV for immediate blocking. In less obvious cases, you can report the matter at the administrator's incident noticeboard to request help tracking down the problem and/or a block. Hope that helps! --ais523 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh hi. I just noticed your edit to my user page. The passages in question are, "He is perhaps the leading historian..." and "Probably he has the largest and most unique research archive...". Could you please directly cite (or substantiate/flesh out) these two phrases? I noticed you had a large bibliographical body, but did not cite any specific passages. :) --Strangerer17:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been studying the field of rescue by Jews during the Holocaust and as far as I can tell David Kranzler's works are the broadest and deepest regarding major Jewish rescuers - i.e. those who worked at the strategic level. I know of no institution/researcher who interviewed as many Jews who were directly and indirectly involved in rescue. As far as I know the major Holocaust centers don't have original audio interviews with the key Jewish rescuers (Kranzler does), nor do they probably have the equivalent of his highly focused personal research archive collected over the decades on four continents - probably at great expense and significant investment of time. Since I haven't seen any books analyzing David Kranzler's mixed media archive, and also have not seen comparative studies of archives it is difficult to think of meaningful citations on this topic.
The article is meant to be a stub, i.e. as a starting point.
Okay, I just put a little "citation needed" box on one part and changed "the leading historian" to "a leading historian." You can change it back if you find an authoritative source declaring him as the leading historian. The problem I see with it is that it seems to be opinion and needs to be documented by a reliable source. In another section, you stated he has written "about ten books." I removed the word "about," but perhaps you could clarify this section. Thanks. :) --Strangerer20:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote needs to be updated since Yad Vashem acquired Professor Kranzler's extensive paper (over 1 million pages) and interview cassette (about 1,-00 cassettes) archive after Prof. Kranzler passed away.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the problem; I haven't heard of it before. I'm going to type an ISBN here: ISBN. Could you reply to this section by editing it, so that I can see what (if anything) happens to the ISBN? --ais523 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I clicked on EDIT and as you see above all but "ISBN" was left from ASCII representation of your ISBN string. I am using Firefox as browser. To double check I just tested also with IE Explorer and with it the ISBN is preserved.Emesz19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My guess as to what's happening is that your version of FireFox has a broken extension that's changing ISBN (number) strings into links, and is getting confused when it tries to do this inside the edit box, but I'm not sure (I've never known this to happen before). It would seem to be a browser problem based on the information you've given. You might want to try asking at the technical village pump to see if anyone there knows what's causing it (but I'm not sure if anyone there will do). Hope that helps! --ais523 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Note to "Nupractor" RE: Yitzhak Rabin Page (also on his Talk page
You deleted my contribution and wrote "Reverted once again, removed ridiculous conspiracy that serves the editor's POV".
I assume you mean well and want the Yitzhak Rabin and other pages on Wikipedia to be truthful and balanced.
If so, we share those goals.
Kindly explain in some detail why you removed my reference to the Israel produced ALTALENA documentary. After all Rabin was a key player in the ALTALENA affair. Removing such facts would censor history and to create a personality cult, which I am sure is not your intention.
The text I wrote about Rabin's repeated nervous breakdowns, including the incident during the War Of Indepence and the statement that the war may have been won because he was incapacitated for two days thus allowing a daring action to take out the Egyptian and Syrian air forces (a plan he was opposed to) are not my ideas/political views, but primarily based on Dr. Uri Milstein book and his talks.
Some other apparent problematic facts about Rabin I prefer not to post on the Web page, because they are possibly not of public concern and in such matters his family is entitled to privacy. Since he was a major public figure privacy does not etend to the matters noted above. They are of public concern.
Under Wikipedia guidelines I encourage you to restore the erassed content and rather than try to force a political view engage me in productive dialogue to resolve the issues. Kindly cite realiable and apolitical references where you disagree.
Yitzhah Rabin seems to have been honest - unfortunately a rare phenomenon in Israeli politics. He deserves that his Web page be truthful.
Wallenberg show trial preparations 1953 in Hungary
Thank you for your note "The above is very important and ought to be expanded on and moved back to the main page.Emesz 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)"
I corrected and moved back. This part of history is also about my father Karoly Szabo.
My english is not the best, please improve my texts if you find some errors, etc... Tamas Szabo08:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to review and edit the text for English. If you live in Budapest suggest bringing the Holocaust Museum's attention to this episode - and maybe also contacting the House of Terror (although people I trust in/from Hungary tell me it is very political).
Many historians write that Stalin was planning a major early 1953 initiative against Jews, preceded by execution of Jewish writers in the USSR, execution of Michoels (?) and purges of others from the war time Jewish Anti-Fascist League, purge/execution of the Czechoslovak party leadership - many of whom were Jews, purge in Hungary (Rakosi arresting Peter Gabor (?) head of AVO/AVH) etc. Shortly before Stalin's death there were plans for the "Doctors' Trial". It is said that the plan was to find them guilty (as in other show trials), publicly execute them, perhaps on Red Square - unprecedented in the USSR and the Soviet colonies (e.g. Hungary) - and then "protect the Jews" from "righteous indignation of the proletariat" by transfer to Siberia to open shacks ... some feel the plan included the transports attacked by the "indignant proletariat" and many Jews killed en route. The Gulag and -40 Celsius cold can kill as easily as Zyklon gas!
Stalin collapsed March 1 1953 shortly before the supposed massive deportation plan could be launched - and died few days later (March 5). Curiously, March 1, 1953 was the Jewish holiday Purim, to remember that long ago another potential mass murderer of Jews, Haman, was killed just before he could carry out his plan. The plans to center a fake show trial in Budapest around Raoul Wallenberg, the rescuer of Jews, fits well into Stalin's and the Soviet system's plans at the time and Stalin's macabre humor. It is curious that a man like Wallenberg could stand up against the Nazis and many murderous Hungarian Fascists, and antisemites in the army, police and in the population, but apparently there were no Wallenbergs to rescue people from the Communists. Emesz22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the articles are extremely well sourced and balanced. I'd like somebody else to remove the tags. Please look at my last versions, because I have run up against somebody from the evolution/creation universe who wants to pick a fight. --Metzenberg03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is quite important. I am very busy now and plan to read & possibly comment on the above articles later in the week. Emesz07:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the articles. The discussion is more "sociological" and political than what it ought to be: legitimate and necessary scientific controversy. If the issue was purely scientific I would advocate a course/lessons on "alternate views of cosmology". One example of an alternate view is a an intelligently designed "framework" designed to evolve within certain constraints and rules. Computer science includes a "genetic programming" and "artificial life" model, which are somewhat similar to intelligent design and can be rigorously and scientifically analyzed. Most if not all of the theologians, priests and rabbis mentioned in the articles are not familiar with man created systems (another example of intelligent design ...) sufficiently large and complex to sustain themselves thru long cycles of "evolution" or mutation. The systems and mental models most of us are familiar with to date have no capability to evolve. It is certainly not true that certain models of intelligent design with built-in evolutionary capability can't be studied scientifically. Computer science/technology is rapidly advancing and one important use of almost limitless computation/communication "energy" is likely to be "creation" of imaginary "worlds" where today's elementary avatar populated community "world" games are primitive precursors. Today's "virtual worlds" and its avatars are still limited and unable to evolve, yet that is certain to change over time - probably the next few decades. One would think that this model alone justifies including "intelligent design" in science education, rather than the current limited and "fundamentalist" view which excludes other than Big Bang etc. actual and potential designs. On the other hand, there is the important social and political issue of having in public schools (at all levels) a religion free environment, which served America well over time. Also, unfortunately, as soon as religion enters a school it tends to bring with it dogmatic views, which are difficult to filter and which tend to rapidly flavor discussion to become unscientific. Much wisdom is required to resolve the conflicting aims of encouraging healthy skepticism in science, including scepticism about certain aspects of science, having scientific rigor devoid of religion and ideology and avoiding divisive religious atmosphere in schools.Emesz17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do some work on the whole section you keep submitting to the Stephen Wise page. These obscure references almost amount to personal research. I fear it won't hold up to scrutiny and feels like a load of POV... Respectfully, A Sniper (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sniper: I am puzzled why you write "These obscure references almost amount to personal research. I fear it won't hold up to scrutiny and feels like a load of POV." The references are to well known authors and their works - e.g. Dr. David Kranzler, Prof. David Wyman, Dr. Rafael Medoff, Ben Hecht, Louis Rappaport - and interview with Hillel Kook by Larry Jarvik. Emesz
I'm sorry to say but the entire way this has been written is not encyclopedic. You also put several points into paragraphs, attributing everything to several authors at once, despite the fact that the individual points of criticism against Wise need to be referenced to individual authors and their works. Blanket statements are made as if they are fact as opposed to the allegations made by authors. I have also added links for two of the works. A Sniper (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nahum Goldmann
Hi, Emesz. I took that out of the article because it had no direct relation to Goldmann, and therefore was basically "original research" see WP:OR. Your argument that "If a building, state, organization collapses the architect is often held to be partially or fully liable." is not on the face of it unreasonable, but it is your argument, not a reputable source's. We would need a citation, which I doubt is exists as he died too long before the wave of criticism, before even thinking of keeping it.
Worth thinking about this. The priniople about an architect's responsibility is common sense knowledge - thus not original research. If the Claims Conference, which is apparently problematic, is not listed as one of Goldmann's achievements then there is no need to speak about its post-Goldmann dynamics. Noting later problems is not necessarily criticism of Goldmann, but of the dynamics of the entity he formed. Who is to blame is then a POV. Perhaps the way to resolve this is for me to find references on the Claims Conference corruption and include them. What do you think?
The other point connected with Bergson and the rescuing of European Jewry is something that does belong, but the main problem here and in the Stephen Wise article is that these are very hotly debated issues. Many do not agree that Goldmann (and Wise) were guilty of "obstruction and lack of significant positive action on behalf of his fellow Jews" or that Bergson's efforts were effective in rescuing (e.g. Yehuda Bauer : "Bergson didn't rescue anyone!") or that there was ever any real possiblity of rescue, or that the mainstream Jewish community in the West was at all silent at the time, or that Bergson / Kook had anything to do with the creation of the War Refugee Board etc. So we have to be careful to represent the controversy and not state one side's disputed claims as facts. Cheers,John Z (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are many documents showing Wise's and Goldmann's and other US Jewish leaders' apathy and obstruction. Some are included in the Wymann, Medoff book appendix and other listed references. I agree that Bauer's etc. objectives should be added - even further, that Israel provides no recognition for those who are presented by historians Kranzler, Wyman, Medoff, etc. as leading Jewish rescuers, leading Holocaust Museums don't criticize Goldmann and Wise and in general omitt those who are presented as leading Jewish rescuers. This too is problematic, since it is then up to the reader to sort out what all this means. Maybe that is the best approach. In such controversies everyone is responsible for making up his own mind.
Every major historic event is ripe with controversy - sometimes more balanced, at times imbalanced. For example most will probably feel Stalin and Mao Tze Tung were mass murderers. Others will feel they were great men and that perhaps a few "mistakes" were made. Even with Hitler there are those who claim he was a great man and innocent of any wrong doing. Sometimes the misstatements are due to genuine belief, at times due to apologists. I feel that in the end one must try to write truthfully, can't ignore controversies and not every contending view is given equal weight. It is certainly true that Goldmann, Wise and the Jewish establishment has many admirers and even more who prefer to bury "mistakes" by these leaders under the carpet. If that is acceptable, then there needs to be a single standard, inasmuch as possible, and the "mistakes" of Mao, Stalin, Hitler etc. must also be hidden. Of course such sterilized and highly filtered history is no longer history.
RE: Yitzchak Rabin
You didn't add any new or useful information to the article. "The Rabin file" is already mentioned in the "further reading" section, Rabin's mental breakdown is already mentioned and a generic "Milstein says that he was stressed" really adds nothing at all. The "Holy canon" is but trivia.
Rabin is cast as THE hero of the Six Day wear and a major hero of the Jerusalem battles. The Milstein book shows what is common knowledge in Israel: that he was neither. That is not a minor fact for further reading, but a major change to Rabin's record which needs to be represented in the body of the document without downplaying it. Recurrent severe mental breakdowns in challanging military situations, including disappearing for days from responsibility as Chief of Staff at the start of a critical war is vety "unusual". So is returning when victory was basically assured doesn't make him the Six Day war hero. I am sure you recall that victory was assured almost immediately by surprise use of the IAF while Rabin "disappeared". Milstein states that in period leading up to the war Rabin was against use of the IAF in such a manner, and paradoxically he led Israel to victory precisely because he vacated his position for three days, when others could assure a swift victory. Rabin had many excellent qualities lacked by current politicians and was an honest man. The way he is presented should respect that - without whitewashing anything.
The "holy cannon" trivia is actually an important part of his legacy and that is part of the way many remember him. Suggest using terms like "trivia" carefully since if used in this manner much of the article is trivia: e.g. the "Peace Song", "Shalom Haver", grand daughter receiving $1 million, the prior name of the square (Kikar Malchei Yisrael), etc.
As for "rushed": do you have a reliable source explicitly stating that the ambulance took its time? no? rushed it is then.
Actually no. You have to show that he was "rushed" and give transit time via reliable sources.
Suggest that to handle the above issues in the spirit of "Truth" you edit the page, assuring all points are represented, given their proper weight and flavor, and being apolitical - not from perspective of Israeli left or right.
Your edits are removing numbers from links in the references, making them inaccessible. This appears to be the same problem you had when we first crossed paths, where your edits removed the ISBN numbers. Please fix this problem before editing again. RamiR12:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for calling my attention to this. Apparently a combination of Wikipedia edit with Firefox causes this. I reported this bug probably over a year ago, and assumed it was fixed. Do you know what is the mechanism for reporting it again?
WP:VPT. I doubt this is a combination of Wikipedia and Firefox, as I myself use Firefox. More likely to be a bad extension, probably something to do with form cleaning, privacy, or anti-phishing. I suggest you uninstall any unused extensions, and check this list for bad extensions. RamiR14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion and I plan to look into it. Maybe first by testing on another computer. Emesz April 24, 2008
Teddy Kollek
I suggest you self revert your edits, as you violated WP:3RR. Also note that the article isn't about the "season", so no details not directly relevant to Kollek should be given. RamiR14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about the "Saison" much the same way that the Rabin article is not about "Palmach", "Independence War", "Six Day War", "Oslo", etc. - or the Kollek article isn't about "Israel Museum", "Teddy Stadium". etc. These are important milestones in their lives and removing or miscoloring them would be wrong - much as the way the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes managed personality cults of its own and villified leaders of its perceived opponents. I am sure that neither you nor I have such goals.
I trust you seek to present true descriptions rather than sanitized or slanted material due to "left", "right", etc. loyalty - much as I do. Wikipedia is fortunately to some extent removed from "local politics". That is an advantage and can in a small way help break away from the destructive and dead-end "left"-"right" infighting and its creation of icons with extreme plastic surgery and makeup. Long ago I read a book with title "Tainted Greatnss". There was certainly much that was special both about Teddy and Rabin and as with all of us there were "stains". One of the seeming "taints" on Rabin's career, Lea's foreign currency fiasco and Rabin's choice to resign, is one of the facts which makes many admire him. I surely think highly of him for that, especially in context of current crop politicians. It is a good sign tjhat this is in the article. Elaborating slightly on devasatating impact of an apparent psychological ailment he suffered from is not meant to ridicuke or pity him. In fact I credit him with making serious contributions in spite of handicaps.
You seem knowledgeable about both Teddy and Rabin and I still think it is better if you do justice to both edits in the spirit of "neutrality" inasmuch as that is humanly possible. I am suggesting this because I give you much credit seeing how important these pages are to you. Emesz April 23, 2008
Rafael Medoff
The article on Rafael Medoff has been nominated for deletion. I thought there's a chance you may know more about him than me or most others, and might like to contribute to the discussion here. Sorry for not responding earlier to your other comments, but Afd is more time sensitive. Cheers,John Z (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Z: Thank you for calling my attention to this. I definitely plan to contribute to the discussion shortly. The fact that someone would suggest removing Dr. Rafael Medoff's page from Wikipedia is by itself noteworthy. Emesz 1 May 2008
Then I'm glad I wrote you. Seems like it is not too likely to be deleted right now, though your contribution could be very helpful. Think it was partly because a blocked editor who seems to have annoyed a lot of people was involved with the article. (Maybe he created some other (bad?) articles and this one got caught up with the others?)John Z (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear John. I plan to add material to Dr. Medoff page.
I agree that in general historical controversies are not treated properly, certainly in the realm of "Jewish rescuers and obstruction by Jewish/Zionist leaders". Holocaust museums excise from history rescuers like Hillel Kook, George Mantello, Recha Sternbuch and Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld and carefully avoid any critical words or accusations about Jewish/Zionist leaders and their organizations - while they rightfully accuse Roosevelt, Churchill, etc.. Yad Vashem finally placed a display about Rabbi Weissmandl and Gisi Fleischmann in their new museum - so one can no longer say they exclude this. They skillfully falsified the historical record and in effect their display nullifies the Bratislava Working Group on a very large, probably 8 sq. meter, display ... Makes them sound like ineffective and naive do gooders. They systematically avoid presenting any hint of controversy - especially about Jewish/Zionist leaders and the dominant Zionist movement of that time. Other major Holocaust museums have a similar attitude. At least this aspect of the Holocaust discourse is far too often politically rather that truth oriented - thus calling it "history" is a misnomer. Also one can't call the result "fiction" since the distortions, makeup, whitewash are not creative enough. Mainstream history books on this aspect of the Holocaust are oversimplifications and distortions and show basic contempt for readers. Often oversimplified and false answers are given rather than painful questions including controversies, some legitimate but most politically motivated. The pattern is similar at other major Holocaust centers. There is an atempt to present a uniform, centrally controlled world view in which probing questions have no place. A leading Israeli historian once said that people must come to Yad Vashem to learn "THE RIGHT WAY" of looking at the Holocuast. This is close to the way propaganda is crafted and distributed and its objective is to remove the most important consequences of open discourse: individualism and peole drawing basic conclusions about the Holocaust's tragedy (besides "Never again).
Prof. Alan Dershowitz wrote that a "marketplace of ideas" is required.
These comments are not restricted to the above noted topic. For example discourse about the Soviet Union's role in WWII is highly distorted - at least in public view and state ceremonies. USSR's alliance and co-rape of Poland and rape of Baltics are under reported, as are the huge numbers of brutal rapes by the Red Army, the estimated 94 million victims of the international Communist Gulag (the "Red Auschwitz"), Hitler's ability to learn from the Gulag and refining its techniques, colonization of all land the Red Army occupied, and the immense tragic loss of life in the USSR during the war due to the way the country was run and its ideology driven self-destruction and making human life almost worthless.
I am hoping that possibly Wikipedia can be a door to a grown-up's version of history, where we are left with fewer answers and some life-long questions. |Emesz 1 May 2008
Now with 200% more Jewishness!
Yes, folks, we're moving on up. This newsletter is now the newsletter for both WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Jewish History, and WikiProject Kabbalah. In the future, I may split them, but for now I think we'll be just fine with one. As always, any questions or comments should be directed to me, L'Aquatique.
A Special Dispatch
Just a note, not aimed at anyone in particular. By order of the administrative cabal, it is officially not cool (and possibly dickish) to call someone an anti-semite when they aren't being anti-semitic. Anti-semitic is a very charged word, and it's important only to use it when you're absolutely sure it applies, lest it become the subject of a Godwin-esque law. Remember Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. In the News
A new class on the importance scale has been added- C Class- which covers articles better than start but not quite to B Class yet. It is up to the WikiProjects to decide whether to adopt them or not. Currently, there has been little discussion within our Projects, so if you feel strongly either way be sure to note so at your Project[s].
Thanks largely to the efforts of Xyz7890, a new navbox has come into being featuring Halakha topics. See: Template talk:Halakha to join in the conversation about how it can best be improved.
To Do
The Simple English Wikipedia is beginning a project of creating and improving articles related to religion, including Judaism. At the present time, volunteers are needed to propose our most important subjects for articles to be created. The official working list is here and a more extended list is here. If you are unsure of proper topics, you might try checking our lists of top importance level articles: Judaism and Jewish History. (WikiProject Kabbalah currently doesn't have such a list)
[Simple English] WikiProject Christianity is considering running a monthly drive wherein two or three top importance articles from English Wikipedia are simplified and moved over to S.E. They have extended an offer to work with us in creating a similar project for Judaism related articles. For questions or volunteer opportunities, please contact User:John Carter.
WikiProject Kabbalah is in dire need of an article rating system for quality and importance. If you are familiar with that system and have some time on your hands, please create one. It could also use some infoboxes...
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
I just thought I should tell you, out of courtesy, that I have felt the need to revert your edit. The reason is that I see no accompanying source supporting that view. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I will add a reference.
Mordechai Vanunu
You recently edited the lead section at Mordechai Vanunu. Please review the guidelines for WP:BLP, as adding unsourced information to BLP articles is problematic. Be advised that I removed the words "who was born in Israel," as the article has reliably established that Vanunu was born in Morocco. Also, failure to produce a reliable source for the remaining two claims you inserted will result in their deletion, though for now you have the opportunity to find a WP:RS to support the claims.—Biosketch (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bonyhád may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Eisner: A BONYHADI ZSIDOK TORTENETE (The story of Bonyhád's Jews) in Hungarian - Tel-Aviv, 1965) </ref><ref>Leslie Blau: Bonyhád - A Destroyed Community - New York, 1994</ref><ref>Blau László:
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kastner train may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hi Emesz, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the edits at Joel Brand, but it's a featured article and has to be carefully sourced. If you would like to make those edits, please open a section on talk and explain why, and provide full citations (page numbers too) so that everything can be checked. Many thanks, SlimVirgin(talk)22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Soros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ADL. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Emesz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Emesz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I reverted your edit because YouTube is not an acceptable source. If you can find a news article about the songs, you can add the content back. Catrìona (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Stern Samu, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk)15:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samuel Rosenman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Wallace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, Emesz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Socialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Terror. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Morgenthau Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President Roosevelt.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You have recently been editing the Arab–Israeli conflict which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
.jpg)
